Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
VĂLEU, VĂLEU, VĂLELEU! TRANSLATORS‟ PROBLEM-CENTRED
STRATEGIES FOR TRANSFERRING INTERJECTIONAL MEANING
Olivia Rusu, Assist., PhD Candidate, ”Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iași
Abstract: This paper deals with the translatability of interjections, pragmatic markers that encode
discoursive emotional replies. Although it is considered part of speech with universal linguistic
characteristics and a primordial element of human language, although it defies the fundamental
principle of language - the Saussurian arbitrary Ŕ, being often located at the periphery of the
linguistic system, paradoxically, the interjection may encode, in its meaning, cultural and historical
connotations that require idiomatic competences in order to be translated.
Thus, we intend to approach theoretically both semantic and pragmatic meaning of this 'disgraceful'
part of speech, from the perspective of problem-centred translation strategies. The study is
illustrated with contrastive examples from children's literature, as we want to discern and exemplify
translation strategies that correlate with certain types of interjections. We will particularly
emphasize translator's functional creativity in rendering the most appropriate significance conveyed
through interjections.
Keywords: pragmatic markers, interjection, idiom, functional equivalence, translation strategies.
Introduction
The mediating process of translating between cultures may prove to be quite
challenging, as the pragmatic meaning of texts cannot be unveiled without a proper
consideration of their social, cultural, contextual and affective functions. In this paper we
will consider this aspect only from the perspective of spoken language. To be exact, spoken
interaction includes a variety of linguistic items and processes (Sweet, 1892, denotes them
as language formulae, while Carter, 2006, as pragmatic markers) that encode speakers‘
intentions and interpersonal meanings, operating ―outside the structural limits of the clause‖
(Carter, 2006:208). These items include discourse markers, stance markers, hedges and
interjections. They are fully operational only in a given context; otherwise, they could
neither be wholly understood, nor transferrable into another language. In addition, the
context they belong to often transmits specific or universal cultural components which are
frequently highlighted by their very presence in the text, as we shall see further on.
The problem of spoken language
Spoken language, together with its spontaneously produced forms and structures, has
been regarded until more contemporary approaches as having a lower importance as
compared to the written expression considered the standard of language adequacy. It is also
important to mention that the meaning of spoken utterances is strongly chained into the
enunciation context and experience and has the strong tendency to convey subjective
information, highlighting the relationship between speaker and auditor. Thus, expressions
that are inherent to formal or informal verbal communication have not been sufficiently
highlighted in dictionaries and grammars (Carter, 2006:9). Nevertheless, these complex
phenomena prove both powerful illocutionary force with expressive (emotive, affective),
conative and phatic functions, and a high degree of creativity in the transmission of
information, which requires careful attention to understanding the deep structure of the
speakers' linguistic choices. For instance, from the perspective of transformative grammar,
the following utterances have the same deep structure, in a context in which a person shouts
after hitting by mistake his finger with a hammer:
―(1) Ouch!
897
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
(2) a. It hurts!
b. It hurts a lot/so much!
c. My finger aches!
d. My finger aches a lot/so much!
e. I feel pain in my finger!
f. I feel a rather intense pain in my finger!‖ (Cruz, 2009:243)
Obviously, the probability that s/he would use version f. from the above is very low,
if not inexistent. Hence, the semantic examination of these pragmatic markers requires, in
our opinion, a theoretical review, in the light of translation theories. We shall focus solely on
the interjections, ―exclamative utterances‖ that ―express positive or negative emotional
reactions to what is being or has just been said or to something in the situation‖ (Carter,
2006:224).
Semantic and pragmatic meaning of the interjection
The interjections significance itself represents a classification criterion. Various
taxonomies in the literature state that interjections have no meaning according to the
Saussurian concept of ―linguistic sign‖ as they "do not denote objects (...) through a concept
or a generalized image and have no logical-semantic structure (configuration)‖ (Croitor
Balaciu, 2005:663). However, their non-conceptualized meaning puts forward the pure
expression of emotions, attitudes, affect and acts of will. We distinguish thus interjections
with one meaning and interjections with multiple meanings that depend on the context.
Depending on the referential source interjections can be internal to the speaker: expressive /
emotive; directive / injunctive / persuasive (+ / - emotive); appellative (+ / - emotive);
ostensive, in deictic or discursive contexts (examples from English and Romanian include
there!; ia, iată, uite), discourse markers (e.g. well, anyway; îhî, păi, zău); expression forms
of politeness – greetings, thanks, apologies -; informative, without emotional content (e.g.
amen, alleluia; hosanna!; pas (for board games); with an euphonic role, in choruses (e.g. lala-la) or vocalic ―filler‖ sounds (e.g. mm, uh, um; ăă, îî). With a referential source external
to the speaker, but seldom also internal, onomatopoeia are sounds imitating noises produced
by animals, birds, insects, sounds produced by the contact between objects, tools or
movements, sounds that accompany various physiological processes, or sound effects of
different actions. Both in spoken language and written texts there are context-linguistic and
circumstantial props that strengthen the interjectional meaning and enhance the degree of
spontaneity. The derivative productivity of interjections is a very widespread aspect to be
mentioned (by suffixation or final transformation – e.g. to wow, to buzz; baubau, haină de
fîş, scîrţ - scîrţîitoare).
Moreover, it is important to mention that the interjection has a significant role and
function in expressive speech acts – including in the expression of humour and irony -, as
well as in directive speech acts (where interjections offer intensity to the enunciation).
Accordingly, we shall deepen communicative forms and structures of the interjection,
emphasising especially descriptive (contextual and discursive) grammar issues, concurring
to the opinion of Ferdinand Brunot and Charles Bruneau who stated that :
„l‘interjection proprement dite, aussi peu intellectuelle que possible, toujours claire
grâce aux circonstances et au ton, est donc en quelque sorte dépourvue de forme. Mais on
peut voir, par l‘étude des interjections, le passage du cri au signe, le passage du réflexe
animal au langage humain. L‘interjection est devenue … un procédé, parfois élégant et
littéraire, d‘exprimer une grande variété de sentiments différents.‖ (in Sarfati, 1995:238).
Pragmatic implications and associations
The predominantly oral and deictic interjections, the stringent dependence of their
signifier on the situational or linguistic context, their communication values (emotive,
phatic, conative, presentative, suggestive, etc.), and their illocutionary and perlocutionary
898
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
features have contemporary pragmatic implications. To exemplify, both in the language of
preschool children and in children's literature interjections support / illustrate their
definition, being used as ―linguistic signals‖ that ―do not denote, but express different
emotions, feelings, volitional impulses or mimic (or suggest) various sounds and noises.
"(Croitor Balaciu, 2005:657, own translation). An anaphoric figure of speech, the
interjection offers both an additional subjective and emotional explication, either positive or
negative, and an element of naturalness and spontaneity to direct speech, free indirect style
or familiar, colloquial style. These characteristics near it to the language of small children,
as an egocentric, expressive and spontaneous reflection of the thinking process. Cognitive
understanding of the physical world manifested by a child at a preverbal age occurs, like in
the case of interjections, by holophrases. Although they contain only one word, holophrases
have the effect of complete sentences on the listener1. Another aspect which is related also
to linguistic universals and that approaches even more interjections to the language of young
children is the common special phonological nature. Thus, their consonant chain is
impossible to be spotted within other parts of speech (for instance, the English and
Romanian interjections: psht! / pşt!, and a personal, not-understandable-by-grown-ups
example of children language: mnpc!). In fact, the language used to talk to children, that
Elliot (1981:151) names motherese, or baby talk, also reveals universal linguistic features
similar to interjections. Specifically, the phonological features refer to syllable repetition or
to the falling of the initial consonant group. Syntactic features are related to the average
duration of expression which is lower, the small number of subordinates and to utterances
without verbs. Moreover, common paralinguistic features are high pitch and exaggerated
intonation. Finally, discursive features imply an addition of imperative and interrogative, as
well as a fluent speech, with a larger number of repetitions.
Examples and translation challenges
This special type of communication may be exemplified by nursery rhymes. These
simple little poems with short and easy to remember rhymes have obvious instructive
purposes for preschool children. For example, the rhyme „Baa, Baa Black Sheep‖ associates
wool and wool goods with the animal that produces them. In addition, the child is
accustomed to the sound a sheep would bleat. A child or a baby cannot build up images and
sounds that do not have a direct connection, a clear correspondence, with his/her
surrounding reality. Therefore, onomatopoeias help toddlers with their first grasp of
language, as they are words that sound precisely like their meaning.
However, these humble rhymes raise translation challenges, as their original meaning
seem to be rooted in the United Kingdom historical events. So, in addition to musical and
educational aspects, a translation should also offer, if possible, historical clues of the source
culture. In the 16th and 17th centuries these easy rhymes used to be an important
communication tool for commoners who were not able to read or write. Different types of
messages were orally transmitted from person to person in order to publicly lash political
events and actions of the age. For instance, an historical connection for the Baa, Baa Black
Sheep is suggested by Alchin (2014) – ―a political satire to refer to the Plantagenet King
Edward I (the master) and the export tax imposed in Britain in 1275 in which the English
Customs Statue authorised the King to collect a tax on all exports of wool in every port in
the country‖.
So, in order to unravel the concealed meaning of Nursery Rhymes and to transcode
them into another cultural and linguistic system, it is necessary to comprehend history,
culture and people of the source text.
1
Passim Elliot (1981:49): In the spoken interaction of a small children the noun biscuit can mean, depending
on the context, I want a biscuit; the dog ate the biscuit or where are the biscuits. One personal example: palapala may mean that either the child or the doll is to to take a shower ;
899
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
Functional creativity in finding equivalence
Linguistic and pragmatic approaches in the translation studies literature of the 20th
century consider the operation of translation as a transcoding operation in which the concept
of equivalence plays a crucial role. From this perspective, we believe that in the translation
process the interjection must have an equivalent. We do consider interjections as keywords
in interpreting the implications of a text to be translated and in decoding its overall message,
due to their entropic and autonomous nature. Consequently, the approach and description of
translating interjections should be based on language (phonetic, morphologic, semantic,
syntactic levels) and cultural grounds. The careful analysis of the source text interjections,
taking into consideration geographical, historical, temporal or social class aspects, as well as
the level of language use is therefore essential. To highlight this point of view, we propose
our own translation of the aforementioned nursery rhyme:
―Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool? / Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! / One
for the master, one for the dame, / And one for the little boy who lives down the lane.‖
Be-behe oaie neagră, ai tu lână? / Da, dom‘le, da, dom‘le, am trei saci plini! / Unul
pentru stăpân, unul pentru coană, / Și-unul pentru băiețelul ce stă printre arini.
Besides the musical aspects of rhyme and rhythm, as well as the educational ones we
referred to above, we also tried to transfer a cultural connection related to the manufacturing
of wool and wool products. Namely, we have translated the phrase ― (...) who lives down the
lane‖ with ―who lives among alders‖, arini, in Romanian, due to the following reasons: in
terms of rhyme, we preserved the alveolar liquid consonants, the lateral [l] – from lane - and
the vibrant [r] – in arini. In terms of significance, we tried to suggest the educational
implicature from the initial source text: countrywomen paint black wool using the bark of
black alders (lat. Alnus glutinosa).
Translation strategies
Remarks on transcoding strategies will be drawn according to linguistic translation
taxonomies proposed by J. P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet in Stylistique comparée du français et
de lřanglais (1958, in Dimitriu 2002:32). We will deepen this classification using the very
detailed one proposed by Andrew Chesterman in Memes of Translation (1997). Chesterman
distinguishes between three major classes of problem-centred translation strategies2:
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic strategies. Translation strategies that we consider
appropriate for transcoding the interjection are direct and indirect.
Direct strategies include loan, namely direct transfers of exotic terms that evoke the
atmosphere of the source language into the target language which does not have a
correspondent (examples of interjection loan in Romanian: aferim!, bonjur!, buzz!, chapeau
bas!, evrica!). The calque or the ―double perspective‖ (Pym, in Dimitriu, 2002:32) is the
literal transfer of SL culture-bound terms (examples of interjection calque in Romanian: mii
şi milioane de fulgere!) According to Chesterman, loan, or calque, is a strategy linked to the
borrowing of both individual items and phrases, as in the following example, where the
translator borrowed the graphical writing, if not the whole compound interjection: ―A headtwo heads, at tooth – two teeth, / A foot – two feet, pok-a-pok-a-pok.‖ – ―Un cap – două
capete, un dinte – doi dinţi, / un picior – două picioare, poc-a-poc-a-poc.‖ (Firuţă, 2003: The
Plural). Literal translation, from a purely linguistic point of view, is a one-to-one transfer of
the SL structures; in other words, it is a perfect linguistic equivalence (examples from
Romanian: bună ziua!, ha-ha-ha!). In Chesterman‘s opinion, literal translation maximally
respects the SL form and the TL grammatical correctness. Thus, in the following children
song, the translator preserves rhythm, register, punctuation and final stressed syllables in
2
―If a goal is the end-point of a strategy, what is the starting point? The simple answer is: a problem. A
strategy offers a solution to a problem, and is thus problem-centred. (…) the translation process too starts with
problems and requires both strategic and intuitive processing. (id.:89)
900
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
rhymes, although slightly modifies their scheme (ABBA in English into ABAB in
Romanian): «The stork clatters its beak: ―Flop-flop, / I‘d like swallowing a frog!‖ / But the
frog laughs: ―croack-croak-croak‖, / Jumping fast into the pond» - «Barza clămpăne din cioc
―Toc toc / Aş înghiiţi un brotac!‖ / Dar brotacul râde „Oac-oac-oac‖, / Ascunzându-se în
lac.» (Firuţă, 2003: The Stork)
Indirect translation strategies include transposition (it refers to any change between
word classes, without differences in meaning) which, for interjections may be closely related
to adaptation (the replacement of some SL communication structures that do not exist in the
TL with familiar ones - e.g. Hell, no! Ŕ Cu siguranţă nu!). The technique of modulation is
used to reveal different perceptions on the surrounding world without significantly affecting
the message (e.g. see you! - hai pa!; by Jove! Ŕ în numele lui Dumnezeu!). Equivalence is a
translation procedure that transcodes the meaning of the source text into the target language
by different stylistic and structural means (e.g. Sfinte Sisoe! Ŕ holy Moses!). In our opinion,
Chesterman includes within the strategy of equivalence numerous semantic
subclassifications (such as: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, paraphrase, converses,
abstraction, distribution, emphasis and trope changes). In the following example, the English
interjection why, used to express surprise, disagreement, indignation is turned in Romanian
into an independent utterance, the interjection Hm!, for the translator wanted to fully transfer
into the target language the character‘s annoyance:
«Ungrateful! said the girl. ―I tell you what, you are very rude; and, after all, who are
you? Only a Student. Why, I don‘t believe you have even got silver buckles to your shoes as
the Chamberlain‘s nephew has‖» (Wilde, 1966:40)
―- Eu, ingrată!? Atît pot să-ţi spun că eşti rău-crescut. Şi la urma urmei, cine eşti
dumneata ? Ia, un simplu student. Hm! Nu cred că-ţi va da mâna să porţi vreodată pantofi cu
catarămi de aur, cum poartă nepotul şambelanului." (Wilde, in Văduva-Poenaru & al.
1991:24)
The communication strategy of explicitation (implicitation) resorts to linguistic,
cultural or pragmatic addition (either optional or mandatory), omission or compensation.
Chesterman states that these are pragmatic strategies, and distinguishes among cultural
filtering, explicitness, information, interpersonal, illocutionary, coherence and visibility
changes, and partial translations. To illustrate, in the following text, Romanian interjections
ei, măi and ia are completely omitted in the target text. Their deictic character is emphasized
in the target language only by the adverb now. Moreover, the deictic affection expressed in
Romanian through măi is rendered in English by the nonstandard employ of the pronoun us
used reflexively as the indirect object of the verb let:
„Ei, măi băieţi, ia amu trageţi la anghioase, (…)‖ – "Now, boys, let us lie down and
sleep it off, (…)‖. (Ion Creangă, traducere A. Cartianu şi R. C. Johnston, in Dimitriu,
2002:80).
Another example is the addition of the interjection Ia in the Romanian version of the
above example, from Oscar Wilde. By doing this, the translator highlights even more the
girl‘s bad – and shallow – impression of the modest student.
Furthermore, in A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), J.C. Catford differentiates
between restrictive equivalence, as opposed to total equivalence (in Dimitriu, 2002:28).
Illustrative for interjections, the first case occurs when only one language level is translated,
and equivalence is established only at that level – phonological or graphological, for
instance. For example, the famous phonological transposition of the nursery rhyme Humpty
Dumpty sat on a wall in French. Wanting to maintain and re-create the same acoustic effect
and to functionally transfer English sounds, translators offered just a phonological shift: un
petit dřun petit sřétonne aux Halles (idem).
901
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
Concluding remarks
To sum up, in our study we have emphasized that in the process of linguistic
mediation between cultures interjections are essential speech elements in maintaining the
strength of educational and pragmatic connotations. Up to recent literature, interjections
have been poorly studied compared to other linguistic categories, although they express a
variety of interpersonal tones, as illustrated above with examples from children speech and
literature. Furthermore, we exemplified functional, problem-centred strategies used to
translate interjections. The omission of interjections in translation weakens the
communicative values of the source text. Occasionally, translator‘s task is eased, as some
interjections are universal – obviously with slight graphical or phonetic differences. For
instance, the Romanian văleu, with its variant văleleu, a creative interjection of (serious or
ironic) pain, wonder or admiration, seems to have the same etymological origin with the Old
English mixed interjection wālā! wālāwā! (found in Sweet, 1892:1543), namely walaway or
welaway in contemporary English, used to express sorrow, grief, concern. Nevertheless, as
languages and cultures define reality differently, some interjections may represent real
challenges for translators, as they carry culture-specific components.
Bibliography:
Primary sources:
Alchin, L. (2014). Nursery Rhymes lyrics, origin and history.
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/, accessed on 17.03.2014;
Firuţă,C.(2003). Letřs Sing and Learn English. Consilier pentru limba engleză:
Augusta Caterina Grundbock, Bucureşti: Casa de producţie şi editură Corifeu;
Văduva-Poenaru, I., Goci, A. (ed.). 1991. 5 povestiri nemuritoare. Lev Tolstoi,
Voltaire, Oscar Wilde, Alphonse Daudet, Wilhelm Hauff, traducere de Const. I. Bondescu,
Bucureşti: Geneze;
Wilde, O. (1966). The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică.
Secondary sources:
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English, A Comprehensive
Guide, Spoken and Written English, Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 10-15, 58, 207 – 240;
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation
Theory. Amsterdam : Benjamins Translation Library;
Contraş E. (1966). „Interjecţia". In: Gramatica limbii române, I. Bucureşti: Ed.
Academiei RSR, pp. 421-429;
Croitor Balaciu, B. (2005). „Interjecţia". In: Gramatica limbii române, I, Cuvântul.
Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică „Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti‖, Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei Române, pp. 657-687;
Cruz, M. P. (2009). Might Interjections Encode Concepts? More Questions than
Answers. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics [online], 5.2, 241-270. doi: 10.2478/v10016-0090015-9 [accessed on: 23.04.2013];
Dimitriu, R. (2002). Theories and Practice of Translation. Iaşi: Institutul European,
Colecţia Cursus, Seria Engleză;
Elliot, Alison, J. (1981). Child Language. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics,
London: Cambridge University Press;
902
Section – Language and Discourse
GIDNI
Sarfati, G.-E. (1995). La tautologie et l‘usage : les interjections dans le dictionnaire.
Faits de langue [online], 3/6, pp. 231-238. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues, [accessed:
15.04.2013] ;
Sweet, Henry. 1892. A New English Grammar Logial and historical, Part I,
Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 37, 62, 151-153.
903